[meta-ti] RFC: creating "extras" layer

[Jason Kridner]

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Thilo Fromm <fromm at dresearch-fe.de> wrote:
> Hello Denys,
>
>> This is a RFC for creating an additional "extras" layer inside meta-ti to
>> contain pieces and components that are either slightly outdated (i.e. old
>> Davinci boards, hawk/crane etc.) or have best-effort status (TI81x, anything
>> DSP-related, etc.) or require non-standard dependencies besides OE-Core
>> (systemd?) with the possibility of moving them back to "main" meta-ti in the
>> future, once they become "first-class citizens", i.e. gain current and
>> continuing support.
>
> Denys, did you just imply that ti81x has no current and continuing
> support? I'm just curious because our TI field application engineer
> keeps telling us that it is fully supported and will receive a kernel
> update soon.
>
> Can you please go into detail on what platforms will be supported in the future?
>
>> The initial split (which is still "work in progress"), following the above
>> description (except the systemd for now) can be checked at:
>>
>> http://arago-project.org/git/?p=meta-ti.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/split
>>
>> I do understand this is, like any other restructuring, an invasive change, but
>> is required to properly position "meta-ti" and the support behind it. I'm open
>> to a discussion and any constructive criticism - feel free to comment. Thanks.
>
> From a platform perspective your split makes a lot of sense imho.
> Especially if there is no active maintenance (let alone development)
> for the "extras" platforms. The euphemistic choice of naming puzzles
> me, though. I take it that by "extras" you actually mean "deprecated"
> or "unmaintained"? If so then please consider naming it that way.
> "extras" really suggests some added sugar to the "core" recipes of
> meta-ti, which doesn't really coin what you intend to do with it. If
> you need to be euphemistic please at least choose a name in the right
> context, like something along the lines of "attic", or "basement".

I believe this interpretation is a good reason not to make this split
at this time.  While I appreciate that some platforms will have more
resources given to updates at various times than others, I don't
believe this split generates an easy-to-grok understanding of the
platform status.  I'd suggest providing links to automated test
reports and something akin to a MAINTAINERS file for a better
indication of platform/recipe status/ownership.

>
> Regards,
> Thilo
>
> --
> Dipl.-Ing (FH) Thilo Fromm, MSc., Embedded Systems Architect
> DResearch Fahrzeugelektronik GmbH
> Otto-Schmirgal-Str. 3, D-10319 Berlin, Germany
> Tel: +49 (30) 515 932 228   mailto:fromm at dresearch-fe.de
> Fax: +49 (30) 515 932 77    http://www.dresearch.de
> Amtsgericht: Berlin Charlottenburg, HRB 130120 B
> Ust.-IDNr. DE273952058
> Geschäftsführer: Dr. M. Weber, W. Mögle
> _______________________________________________
> meta-ti mailing list
> meta-ti at yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-ti